“Tech Knowledge applauds the FCC for repealing the Obama administration’s bureaucratic power grab over internet regulation. Our elected representatives in Congress should decide the fundamentals of how the internet is regulated, not unelected bureaucrats at the FCC. Today’s action puts that responsibility squarely on the shoulders of Congress where it belongs.”

Tech Knowledge promotes market-oriented technology policies on behalf of the public interest. Additional information about Tech Knowledge can be found on our website, techknowledge.center.

“Tech Knowledge welcomes the FCC’s open and transparent effort to repeal the last administration’s unconstitutional net neutrality rules. In the absence of a market failure, the constitution doesn’t permit the FCC to treat the information superhighway or any other institution of the press like a public utility. This foundational principle of our system of government must be restored.”

Tech Knowledge promotes market-oriented technology policies on behalf of the public interest. Additional information about Tech Knowledge can be found on our website, techknowledge.center.

“Today’s vote is the first step in returning to the light-touch regulatory approach that yielded the broadband internet. Light-touch regulation has a proven track record of protecting consumers while promoting competition and investment in broadband networks and maximizing innovation. Read More

“I applaud Chairman Pai’s decision to use an open and transparent process for reversing Obama’s decision to snatch political control over the internet using net neutrality as an excuse. It was an act of extraordinary bravery for Pai to start this process, and it will take an iron will for him to stand up to the Silicon Valley giants that seek to squash his plan. If they succeed, America will never be great again.

Today’s speech sets the stage for a David and Goliath battle between Pai and Google, the richest and most powerful corporation the world has ever known. Obama’s net neutrality rules were designed to support Google’s business interests, and Google will throw all its strength behind them.

It’s impossible to overstate the Google Goliath’s strength. Its power goes far beyond the massive amounts it spends on lobbying and its work on behalf of the Obama and Hillary Clinton political campaigns.

Google’s monopoly over internet advertising also gives it unseemly influence over the opinions of mainstream media. The thousands of newspapers, TV stations, and other media that rely on Google’s advertising network for a substantial portion of their revenue streams cannot afford to oppose Google on net neutrality.

That’s why Pai’s speech took so much courage. Both the mainstream media and the world’s richest corporations will be against him.

Americans who believe in free speech, freedom of the press, and fair competition cannot let him stand alone. Pai is internet freedom’s David. At this hour, we must stand by Pai.”

Tech Knowledge promotes market-oriented technology policies on behalf of the public interest. Additional information about Tech Knowledge can be found on our website, techknowledge.center.

The Nebraska Law Review has published an article written by Fred Campbell that explains how the Press Clause of the First Amendment protects the Internet transmission of mass media content from common carrier regulation. The complete article is available HERE.

Share the post "The First Amendment and the Internet: The Press Clause Protects the Internet Transmission of Mass Media Content from Common Carrier Regulation"

Fred Campbell published this piece at Forbes today explaining how the “FCC’s net neutrality rules impose the same old rate regulation on ISPs with the ‘modern’ addition of unfair procedures and discriminatory enforcement.”

Executive Summary

Is watching Netflix on the broadband Internet more like (A) watching cable television or (B) talking on the telephone? Common sense suggests the answer is “A”, the court that overturned the previous open Internet rules[1] chose “A”,[2] and the First Amendment demands it. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) nevertheless chose “B” in the Second Internet Order:[3] It concluded the Internet is the functional equivalent of the public switched telephone network and is subject to the common carrier regulations in Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

If the FCC had admitted the Internet offers communications capabilities that are functionally equivalent to the printing press, mail carriage, newspaper publishing, over-the-air broadcasting, and cable television combined, it would have been too obvious that classifying broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers is unconstitutional. Like all other means of disseminating mass communications, broadband Internet access is a part of the “press” that the First Amendment protects from common carriage regulation. Read More

Today I joined a diverse coalition of web entrepreneurs, investors, telecom and antitrust experts, and policy organizations who signed a letter urging lawmakers of both parties to take responsibility for resolving net neutrality through legislation. The letter states, “Congress, not three unelected officials, should decide the future of the Internet.” The American people would be better served if that future does not include Title II or vague and expansive FCC authority under “Section 706.” The complete letter is available HERE.

Share the post "Congress, not three unelected officials, should decide the future of the Internet"

Washington, D.C., January 14, 2015 – Fred Campbell, Director of the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology, released the following statement with respect to President’s Obama’s broadband announcement today in Cedar Falls, Iowa:

“President Obama’s latest plan to turn the Internet into a public utility is bad economics and bad for our Constitutional right to a free press. The approach to broadband adopted by Cedar Falls, where the President is revealing his plan, repeats the economic errors of the past.

The Cedar Falls network is owned by the city’s rate-regulated power utility. The Federal Communications Commission has long recognized that combining rate-regulated services with other services leads to hidden price increases. This “cross-subsidization” concern — that power companies have incentives to raise consumer electric bills to pay for the deployment of broadband networks — is why the Department of Justice sued to break up the AT&T monopoly in the early 1980s.

Though this problem can be avoided by keeping municipal broadband networks separate from power companies, many independent, government-owned broadband networks have failed, leaving taxpayers to clean up the mess. Burlington Telecom in Vermont used $17 million in city funds before defaulting on its debt obligations. Similarly, the city of Provo, Utah was subsidizing its broadband network at the rate of $2 million per year until it decided to sell the network to Google for one dollar.

Turning broadband networks into public utilities would also put the freedom of the press at risk. The Founders knew through their own, living experience that governments can control ideas by controlling the means of their dissemination. That’s why the First Amendment protects the printing press — the mass media technology of their day — from government control. That protection is equally applicable to the Internet, which is rapidly becoming the primary mass media technology of the present day. Permitting government ownership of a monopoly broadband network would be every bit as dangerous as permitting government ownership of a monopoly newspaper.”

This week, the President doubled down on his bad economic policies when he announced his plan to impose net neutrality through ‘Title II’ price regulation of Internet broadband providers — a plan that will discourage investment in new communications infrastructure and threaten our economic recovery.

Over the last three years, America’s broadband providers have been the brightest source of economic hope during a particularly gloomy recession.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) ranks AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast among the top ten U.S. “investment heroes” — the companies who are investing the most capital in the United States. These three companies alone have invested nearly $125 billion in the U.S. over the last three years, with AT&T and Verizon topping the list on an annual basis.

Obama’s response to their investments in America’s long-term future? A government plan that would take the value of their investments and gift it to his allies in Silicon Valley — companies that haven’t been willing to make the same level of investment on American soil. Read More

Share the post "President Obama’s Plan to Impose Title II Regulations on the Internet Promises More Economic Despair"